Shoehorning his adjectives doesn't change the facts:.NET is damn fast. Perhaps not "I need to raytrace downtown Manhattan." fast, but certainly fast for web services, desktop applications, mobile apps, and Windows PowerShell. Heck, it even beat out a C++ app where low-level usually succeeds--lifting big data structures--until Raymond Chen wrote his own allocator.
I can't speak for all high school courses, but all AP Calculus (AB probably, maybe BC) cover Newton's method, usually part of the "applications of derivatives" section, a section that also entails throwing students that barely comprehend the material into the deep end of related rates.
I can't believe this people modded this Insightful.
> The only things that should be added to Firefox are bug/security fixes. Leave all the bells and whistles stuff to the extension authors.
This is tantamount to saying Firefox is feature-complete. There's no software project that's feature-complete. Ignoring users (not to mention every single new technology that the Internet churns out these days) and fixing bugs is ignorant and arrogant and only leaves a software project as a sitting duck.
> Their Bugzilla is so filled with ancient bugs that no one has even looked at...
It's a huge project. Of the 350,000 bugs filed with more coming in everyday, some bugs get left behind. The perfect project you describe where every bug is looked at with loving detail doesn't exist.
>... and gecko is falling behind their competitors.
You just linked to the source code of an entire web browser and called it "a mess." If broad generalization warning lights don't flash now, we really should change the batteries. What code file do you think is a mess? As someone who's seen a lot of code review, patches get thoroughly reviewed and nitpicked (for indentation, spacing, line breaks, variable naming, you name it). To suggest the codebase went down the toilet between the 1.5 and 2.0 release is a preposterous argument.
> But the end result is that it's very difficult for most programmers to come up to speed with the code even just to fix a small bug, let alone implement entirely new functionality...
Which programmers? Do you have names? Or is it just "most" of them? I've seen plenty of small bugs that were minor changes in an XML or JS file somewhere that weren't difficult to understand at all. And, yes, implementing a new feature in a mature web browser project is hard. This shouldn't be news to anybody.
> Why, does Mozilla have a policy of allowing anyone to commit patches without approval? > If crap patches get automatically committed and added to the code base, and no-one at Mozilla thinks this is a bad idea...
Nothing like this happens. All patches are reviewed and super-reviewed. And then only people with CVS access can check in that patch. You can verify this by looking at all the r= and sr= marks on Bonsai.
It's true there's a market for a professional IDE like Visual Studio but the very act of porting something is a punch to the profit groins; it would take much work to port a project the size of VS. Microsoft would also have to port its building toolchain, its.NET platform, its web services/server/etc. platform, its debugger, and so on. Then Microsoft, as a professional company also in the licensing market, would have to support it.
Also, a large *nix server market doesn't necessarily make up a substantial portion of the developers market *nix VS would target. Microsoft would also have win hearts and minds; the *nix platform thrives on open-source. VS doesn't.
From your "ads for expensive toys" comment, I'm guessing you're talking about "Wired" magazine and not Wired News. The magazine's content is controlled by completely different people so errors in Wired News are not reflective of the magazine at all, which I think continues to be one of the best technology-focused magazines. Less advertising and commercialism than other magazines (e.g. "Popular Science"), filled with good writers (Lawrence Lessig is a recent addition), and half of each issue is dedicated to long, insightful articles. Chicago Tribune named it the best magazine in 2004. Wired News seems to be riddled with errors like these that are odd for a technology news website, but its magazine sister doesn't suffer from anything nearly that bad.
To me, a whole lot of time could've been better used if the mathematicians realized that conjectures are true if they felt that it was true in their gut. Sure the Chinese mathematicians could've looked Perelman's proof up and add details, but they could've just looked it up in their gut first.
I like how Slashdot went from "Oh gosh, girls and ponies and kitties!" to "Dude, wouldn't a light saber be cool? No wait, is that possible? Let's discuss the physics of it in the next 20 posts."
I'll see that and raise grandparent to merdivorous blasphemite. "I rediscovered..., and was surpised..." Comma within a compound predicate? For shame, sir.
When did Avalon/WPF get removed? Isn't the Vista demo with the Alt-Tab 3D windows flipping thing a sign of it being in Vista? Isn't Aero Glass another sign?
"All the BSD and MIT do is keep attribution, are you really that arrogant?" How is attribution arrogant? It's no less arrogant than, say, donating non-anonymously to a charity. For somebody who's spent hours to years working on something they've released to the public domain, I certainly wouldn't mind attributing them in my derivative work. Would restrictions like derivative work licensing or ability to use DRM be more arrogant?
"If you don't care about the code's continued freedom, I can't see why you'd care if your name was attached to it." Not everybody values code freedom as highly, but that doesn't mean that makes them bad people or that makes them arrogant to want attribution or that makes them uncaring about their work.
I think Microsoft is going more for a sizeable dent in the Windows application market right now than the enterprise market dominance Java has (as seen from the lack of fifty four-letter acronyms); that's why I've never really liked any comparison between.NET and Java market shares. Java and C# are about as close as being alike without being illegal as they can, but the two companies are pushing their languages and frameworks in different directions. The selling point being "Hey! It's not WinAPI!::hallelujah::" there's a rather good chance of it succeeding.
Completely agree. C/C++, aside from compiler bugs from compiler to compiler, completely miss the portability mark when it comes to GUI development. The closest they get is if a developer uses some cross-platform toolkit that sinks its fingers into other toolkits (WinAPI, GTK, HappyShinyUmpteenthToolkit), and then you're just offloading the portability to other people. In the end, they're just as capable as any other language that has a compiler on many platforms.
The main reason to use Java is that its cross-platform. If you think Microsoft's plan is to lure over Java developers to a platform that's locked into Windows from a platform that runs on who knows how many platforms, you have another thought coming to you.
That's only because Microsoft was going at a completely different task than Apple when they first started. Microsoft was marketing heavily to businesses, whereas Apple wasn't. Apple could afford to lock in their users to their hardware because their users wouldn't have any pressing concern to not be locked in, whereas a business would shy away from lock-in like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Shoehorning his adjectives doesn't change the facts: .NET is damn fast. Perhaps not "I need to raytrace downtown Manhattan." fast, but certainly fast for web services, desktop applications, mobile apps, and Windows PowerShell. Heck, it even beat out a C++ app where low-level usually succeeds--lifting big data structures--until Raymond Chen wrote his own allocator.
0 158.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/ricom/archive/2005/05/19/42
I can't speak for all high school courses, but all AP Calculus (AB probably, maybe BC) cover Newton's method, usually part of the "applications of derivatives" section, a section that also entails throwing students that barely comprehend the material into the deep end of related rates.
Loading up an application's options or preferences--more often than not--decreases user-friendliness. Look at Microsoft Word's options.
I can't believe this people modded this Insightful.
... and gecko is falling behind their competitors.
> The only things that should be added to Firefox are bug/security fixes. Leave all the bells and whistles stuff to the extension authors.
This is tantamount to saying Firefox is feature-complete. There's no software project that's feature-complete. Ignoring users (not to mention every single new technology that the Internet churns out these days) and fixing bugs is ignorant and arrogant and only leaves a software project as a sitting duck.
> Their Bugzilla is so filled with ancient bugs that no one has even looked at...
It's a huge project. Of the 350,000 bugs filed with more coming in everyday, some bugs get left behind. The perfect project you describe where every bug is looked at with loving detail doesn't exist.
>
By what? Cool points? Ploids?
> Look for yourself: http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/.
You just linked to the source code of an entire web browser and called it "a mess." If broad generalization warning lights don't flash now, we really should change the batteries. What code file do you think is a mess? As someone who's seen a lot of code review, patches get thoroughly reviewed and nitpicked (for indentation, spacing, line breaks, variable naming, you name it). To suggest the codebase went down the toilet between the 1.5 and 2.0 release is a preposterous argument.
> But the end result is that it's very difficult for most programmers to come up to speed with the code even just to fix a small bug, let alone implement entirely new functionality...
Which programmers? Do you have names? Or is it just "most" of them? I've seen plenty of small bugs that were minor changes in an XML or JS file somewhere that weren't difficult to understand at all. And, yes, implementing a new feature in a mature web browser project is hard. This shouldn't be news to anybody.
> Why, does Mozilla have a policy of allowing anyone to commit patches without approval?
> If crap patches get automatically committed and added to the code base, and no-one at Mozilla thinks this is a bad idea...
Nothing like this happens. All patches are reviewed and super-reviewed. And then only people with CVS access can check in that patch. You can verify this by looking at all the r= and sr= marks on Bonsai.
Dead Like Me reruns, Eureka.
There's a weblog by a Flash developer about Flash on Linux. It's on Movable Type, so you know it's hardcore devotion.
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/
It's true there's a market for a professional IDE like Visual Studio but the very act of porting something is a punch to the profit groins; it would take much work to port a project the size of VS. Microsoft would also have to port its building toolchain, its .NET platform, its web services/server/etc. platform, its debugger, and so on. Then Microsoft, as a professional company also in the licensing market, would have to support it.
Also, a large *nix server market doesn't necessarily make up a substantial portion of the developers market *nix VS would target. Microsoft would also have win hearts and minds; the *nix platform thrives on open-source. VS doesn't.
From your "ads for expensive toys" comment, I'm guessing you're talking about "Wired" magazine and not Wired News. The magazine's content is controlled by completely different people so errors in Wired News are not reflective of the magazine at all, which I think continues to be one of the best technology-focused magazines. Less advertising and commercialism than other magazines (e.g. "Popular Science"), filled with good writers (Lawrence Lessig is a recent addition), and half of each issue is dedicated to long, insightful articles. Chicago Tribune named it the best magazine in 2004. Wired News seems to be riddled with errors like these that are odd for a technology news website, but its magazine sister doesn't suffer from anything nearly that bad.
To me, a whole lot of time could've been better used if the mathematicians realized that conjectures are true if they felt that it was true in their gut. Sure the Chinese mathematicians could've looked Perelman's proof up and add details, but they could've just looked it up in their gut first.
(1.4 million DVDs)/(1 day) * (4.2 million people) = 0.33 DVDs per person per day or 1 DVD per three people per day, not 3 DVDs per person per day.
I like how Slashdot went from "Oh gosh, girls and ponies and kitties!" to "Dude, wouldn't a light saber be cool? No wait, is that possible? Let's discuss the physics of it in the next 20 posts."
I'll see that and raise grandparent to merdivorous blasphemite. "I rediscovered ..., and was surpised ..." Comma within a compound predicate? For shame, sir.
When did Avalon/WPF get removed? Isn't the Vista demo with the Alt-Tab 3D windows flipping thing a sign of it being in Vista? Isn't Aero Glass another sign?
"All the BSD and MIT do is keep attribution, are you really that arrogant?"
How is attribution arrogant? It's no less arrogant than, say, donating non-anonymously to a charity. For somebody who's spent hours to years working on something they've released to the public domain, I certainly wouldn't mind attributing them in my derivative work. Would restrictions like derivative work licensing or ability to use DRM be more arrogant?
"If you don't care about the code's continued freedom, I can't see why you'd care if your name was attached to it."
Not everybody values code freedom as highly, but that doesn't mean that makes them bad people or that makes them arrogant to want attribution or that makes them uncaring about their work.
Same thing we do everyday, Pinky. Try to take over the world!
Or you could be normal and say "200 people".
(Or you could be semi-normal, hate the word "people", and write "200 persons", but that ruins my condescending comment.)
Well, really, it's your company's fault for naming itself Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Incorporated.
I think Microsoft is going more for a sizeable dent in the Windows application market right now than the enterprise market dominance Java has (as seen from the lack of fifty four-letter acronyms); that's why I've never really liked any comparison between .NET and Java market shares. Java and C# are about as close as being alike without being illegal as they can, but the two companies are pushing their languages and frameworks in different directions. The selling point being "Hey! It's not WinAPI! ::hallelujah::" there's a rather good chance of it succeeding.
Hi shazbot.
* shazbot shazzes all over IrcMonkey.
* IrcMonkey cries.
Completely agree. C/C++, aside from compiler bugs from compiler to compiler, completely miss the portability mark when it comes to GUI development. The closest they get is if a developer uses some cross-platform toolkit that sinks its fingers into other toolkits (WinAPI, GTK, HappyShinyUmpteenthToolkit), and then you're just offloading the portability to other people. In the end, they're just as capable as any other language that has a compiler on many platforms.
The main reason to use Java is that its cross-platform. If you think Microsoft's plan is to lure over Java developers to a platform that's locked into Windows from a platform that runs on who knows how many platforms, you have another thought coming to you.
Still. Cheng, even with all these quotes, seems to have overread the PR and misplaced her assumption about the speaker in the mouse.
That's only because Microsoft was going at a completely different task than Apple when they first started. Microsoft was marketing heavily to businesses, whereas Apple wasn't. Apple could afford to lock in their users to their hardware because their users wouldn't have any pressing concern to not be locked in, whereas a business would shy away from lock-in like that.